Several types of access control vestibules are known, but do not meet the requirements for use with banks within the U.S. because they do not provide the minimum access time required to be effective in a bank, they do not provide adequate security to keep out weapons, do not present an adequate appearance acceptable by a bank, are expensive to maintain and operate, are expensive and labor intensive to install, and are not adequately secure. Some common access control security systems are suggested in U.S. Pat. No. 5, 195,448, to Sims, U.S. Pat. No. 4,656,954 to Tonali, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,481,887 to Urbano. These and other common access control chamber systems have significant problems which allow criminals who plan around the system to enter the secured building with a weapon. The known systems are either too costly to make and operate, do not provide the minimum access rate for banks to use, do not operate effectively to keep out persons carrying weapons, or do not have a good appearance.
In one example of a method a criminal could use to evade a common access control chamber system, a would -be bank robber can open the outer entry door and throw a weapon between the metal detector panels without activating the unit, proceed to the second entry door, pick up the weapon and enter the bank. Another means of evading a common access control chamber system uses two bank robbers who enter the outer entry door together. The first robber, who has no weapon, then proceeds to the second entry door while the second robber, who has a hidden weapon, straddles the entryway putting his feet on the metal framing, waits for the first robber to open the second entry door, and then both enter the bank. In yet another method of evading a common access control chamber system, a would-be bank robber would proceed inside the entry chamber, activate the metal detector, drop his weapon on the floor, exit the chamber through first entry door, wait for operator to reset the system, and then re-enter, pick up his weapon and enter the bank. Finally, a common access control chamber system could be evaded if while a customer was exiting from a chamber, an armed robber entered the bank through the exit outer door chamber and leaves a weapon for a second robber who is unarmed standing by the inner exit door. The second robber would then open the inner exit door and pick up the weapon. These and other methods of evading common access control chamber security systems render common access control chamber systems partially effective.
Protective door systems of the type which provides some degree of protection and security for banks and similar office environments are well known in the art. One well known device of this type (U.S. Pat. No. 4,060,039 to Lagarrigue) shows a security system having embodiments with a circular or a rectangular shape, the rectangular shaped embodiment having a side-by-side entrance and exit chamber, each with an entrance door into the chamber and an exit door out of the chamber. A control system causes the second door to lock when a weapon carried by a person is detected inside the entrance chamber, preventing the person carrying the weapon from entering the bank. If a weapon is not detected, the second door is unlocked only when the first door of the entrance chamber has been closed and locked. This prevents a person inside the entrance chamber from holding the second door open while another person who may have a weapon enters the entrance chamber. The first door cannot be opened when the second door is open or a person is on a contact pad on the floor of the entrance chamber. One big disadvantage of the Lagarrigue access system is that the walls are made of concrete and thus a bank personnel cannot observe a person passing through the vestibule. A person in a wheel chair or a police or security officer carrying a weapon could not be observed. Also, the concrete walls do not provide a good appearance to match the front of the bank.
The metal detector in the Lagarrigue patent is only for detecting Ferro-magnetic metals such as steel, and operates on measuring changes in a static magnetic field (also called Continuous wave technology), not changes in high frequency electromagnetic fields. The metal detector in Lagarrigue also includes several magnetic field sources (such as ferrite magnets) arranged on each of the two side walls of the chamber and fills the area to be crossed by a person with magnetic fields. A series of large induction loops are adjoined to the magnetic field sources. An electronic device averages or adds the induction voltages being generated in the induction loops of the area crossed by the person. As a result, the reading obtained is practically independent of the location where the weapon is taken through the area.
Another disadvantage of the Lagarrigue system is that the concrete walls must be poured at the assembly site, and must make use of molds to form the walls. Concrete construction is a very timely and costly construction method, and banks do not want to create a construction site at their front door.
Another disadvantage of the Lagarrigue system is the use of double doors. Banks want a system with a single door as opposed to double doors used in the Lagarrigue patent. Double doors require twice the number of locks, making the system more expensive, and the double doors provide a space or gap between them in which an intruder can insert a tool to pry open the doors, making the system less secure.
Another disadvantage of the Lagarrigue system is that the metal is--from a security standpoint--designed to detect "Ferro-magnetic metals" only, which in today's world is impractical, considering the wide array of weapons made from exotic, non-Ferro-magnetic materials such as stainless steel, zinc or aluminum and even plastics or ceramics.
Another disadvantage with the continuous wave based metal detectors of the Lagarrigue patent is that the detectors have high false alarm rates caused by poor electrical interference. The amount of electrical instrumentation used in today's environment is much more than at the time of the Lagarrigue invention. If the unit false alarms often, it will eventually be turned off or ignored by the security personnel, thus defeating its purpose.
Another disadvantage with the metal detector of the Lagarrigue invention is that, because the electronic device uses one series of loops to pick up the magnetic field generated by metals, the system cannot distinguish between a weapon and several pieces of metals carried by a person on several parts of the body, such as the keys, coins, metal watches, jewelry and other small items of metal carried by the person. Thus, the metal detector would indicate the presence of a weapon when no such weapon is present.
Another well known device of this type (U.S. Pat. No. 4,481,887 to Urbano) shows a security door and system of installation having bullet-proof walls and doors, the system being constructed in modular form for on-site assembly, the framework is made of steel or heavy aluminum, the vestibule (chamber) is rectangular or box shaped, the doors open automatically by photo cells, green and red lights indicating whether to wait or pass through the system, an automatic timing device is provided and operates after a person has entered the vestibule through the first door a predetermined time period to open the second door and allow the person to leave the vestibule and enter the building, overhead ventilators, the side walls and doors are made of transparent bulletproof glass or plastic so that a person entering and leaving may be observed by bank personnel, and an over-riding door lock system with a manually operated switch can be used whereby when a bank robber is within the exit chamber all the doors are locked to trap the robber therein. The Urbano system also discloses that the over-riding door lock switch can be operated remotely by a hand-held remote control unit, and briefly suggests that a weapon detector may be integrated into the operating circuit to lock the doors. The Urbano patent does not provide any teaching as to how the weapon detector can be integrated with the system, such as where the detector can be placed.
One disadvantage of the Urbano system is that the metal frame of the doors open into the access chamber and thus will interfere with a metal detector and produce false alarms if the metal detector is located inside the chamber. The metal detector must be located inside the access chamber in order that only one person can enter through at a time.
Another disadvantage of the Urbano system is the use of automatically opening doors. Banks want a system with manually operated doors as opposed to automatically operated doors. Automatic doors are more costly to maintain and operate by the bank, since repairs would require an electrician, and an electric motor needed to power the automatic doors would produce undesired magnetic fields that could interfere with the operation of the metal detector.
Another disadvantage with the Urbano system is the use of double doors as discussed above with respect to the Lagarrigue system, whereby a space or gap is left between the doors that can be used to pry open the doors, and the doors require twice the number of locks.
Another disadvantage with the Urbano system is that the sides of the security chamber are formed of a single piece of bullet proof glass extending from the entrance end to the exit end of the chamber. This results in the requirement to use an extremely large piece of the bullet proof glass, which is extremely heavy and costly. When shipping and assembling the modular sections, the heavy piece of glass is harder to install than would two or more pieces. Also, if the glass was to break due to a fired bullet, the whole side section would require replacing instead of a smaller section.
Another well known device of this type (European Patent application 268,924-A to Maillot) shows an automatic access control airlock with a weapon detector having an eddy current movement detector, contact carpet presence detectors in the front and back of the passageway, locking and unlocking of the doors are controlled automatically by the presence detectors, the door frames are made of a non-metallic material (fiberglass reinforced plastic), the first door opens toward the inside of the access chamber, the first and second door hinges are on the outside and are recessed, and the closing locking of both doors are set into the box frame. The non-metallic (plastic) door frames are used for the purpose of reducing interference of the metal detector when the door opens toward the detector. The metal detector is located toward the first or entrance door.
One disadvantage of the European system is that the door frames are made of plastic. If the main frame is to be made of a metal such as aluminum, the cost and complexity of making the repairs is greatly increased because of the need of different materials and processes of making them. Also, if a repair of the door frame is necessary--such as when a bullet hole in the door must be repaired--the entire door would have to be replaced, resulting in the entire unit being shut down until a replacement door can be delivered from the manufacturer. Also, the plastic used in the door would tend to dry out over time and crack. Further, screws are used to secure parts to the plastic door frame. The plastic around the screws tend to fracture over time, and thus, the screws tend to come lose. Also, the first door opens toward the inside of the chamber which requires that the unit be longer than would a unit in which the door opens toward the outside.
Another well known device of this type (U.S. Pat. No. 4,741,275 to Lewinder et al.) shows a device for controlling access of the security chamber which can unlock all doors in case of a fire so as to free the passage to the exit from the bank. Also shown is a wireless remote control unit which is used to change the operating mode of the security chamber.
A device for manually controlling access to a security chamber such as that described in U.S. Pat. No. 4,741,275 to Lewinder et al. might prevent robbers from evading or "tricking" a completely electronically controlled system. However, the Lewinder device would be completely ineffective if the human operator was removed by force or did not detect the "trick."
Another well known device of this type (U.S. Pat. No. 5,311,166 to Frye) shows a security vestibule having a security access system which preferably operates on a low voltage independent power source, and a high voltage DC power source is used to power a switch. This patent is silent as to what parts of the system use the low voltage power source and the high voltage power source.
One disadvantage of the systems in the prior art devices is that the doors are made from a metal, and can cause the metal detector to give false readings. A door that opens toward the metal detector provides a metallic material within the range of the metal detector's magnetic fields. Also, door frames made of a metal create an electrical closed loop near the metal detector. When the door is opened (or moved), a magnetic field is created by the closed metal loop within the door frame which causes interference with the metal detector. This interference can cause the metal detector to false alarm. One well known technique to reduce or eliminate the magnetic effect from a closed electrical loop in the metal door frame is to provide an insulated cut section in the door frame so that an open loop is formed where the closed loop was so that movement of the door frame will not generate a magnetic field. One disadvantage of cutting the metal door frame is that the structural strength of the door frame is thus reduced.
Accordingly, it is desirable to have an access control system that is more effective at detecting weapons and not false alarming. Also, it is desirable to have an access control system that has a good appearance, has low maintenance costs, provides quick access rates for bank customers, is easy and less expensive to install, and is secure. The more effective method would be able to prevent the techniques described above for evading common access control chamber systems, and would meet with Access Control Unit Requirements for Financial Institutions in the United States. These requirements include: must have the ability to identify an armed person and prevent entry; low cost; user friendly; low maintenance; made in the USA; fail safe system; must meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) and NFPA (Fire) Federal requirements; fully automatic control system normally requiring little operator intervention; bullet resistance glass and metal framing; ability to "lock" or to "unlock" all doors simultaneously; modular construction which would permit future relocation; low cost facility renovation to accommodate unit in existing doorways; high flow (4-5 seconds process time per person); manually operated doors; must permit access by only one person at a time; ability to interface with building fire alarm system; ability to interface with local existing security alarm system; ability to discriminate between a weapon and other metals; ability to detect static metal inside the chambers (Weapons left on floor); ability to prevent straddling; user may be allowed to exit the entrance booth if he so desires even thought he may be armed; integrated Close Circuit TV System interfaced with the system; ability to allow a second person to release the entrance door via a wireless button if the metal detector is activated; ability to detect a weapon if the person throws the weapon between the metal detector's panels, closer to the entrance door; and ability to allow an adult with a child to enter and exit.
Accordingly, a principal object of the present invention is to provide a security access system for banks or the like which satisfies fire department regulations, handicapped regulations, and which also meets the needs of the bank for reasonably rapid access and the prevention of robberies.